Publication and Ethic

Section A: Publication and authorship 

  1. All submitted papers are subject to strict peer-review process by at least two international reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper.
  2. Review process are blind peer review.
  3. The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language.
  4. The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
  5. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
  6. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
  7. The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
  8. No research can be included in more than one publication. 

Section B: Authors’ responsibilities

  1. Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.
  2. Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
  3. Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere. 
  4. Authors must participate in the peer review process. 
  5. Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
  6. All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research.
  7. Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
  8. Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
  9. Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
  10. Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors. 

Section C: Reviewers’ responsibilities

  1. Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information. 
  2. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author
  3. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments
  4. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
  5. Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
  6. Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. 

Section D: Editors’ responsibilities

  1. Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
  2. Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
  3. Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
  4. Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
  5. Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
  6. Editors should have a clear picture of a research’s funding sources.
  7. Editors should base their decisions solely one the papers’ importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication’s scope.
  8. Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason. 
  9. Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers. 
  10. Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
  11. Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
  12. Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
  13. Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions, they should have proof of misconduct.
  14. Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.
Guide to Ethics for Journal Publications
The publication of an article in the peer-reviewed Inotera journal is an important medium in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. This is a direct reflection of the quality of the author's work and the institutions that support it. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody scientific methods. It is therefore important to agree on the expected ethical standards of conduct for all parties involved in publishing actions: authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, publishers and the public.

LPPM Polytechnic of South Aceh as the publisher of Inotera is responsible for overseeing and monitoring all stages of publication, and we are aware of other ethical responsibilities and responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that ads, reprints or other commercial revenue have no impact or influence editorial decisions. The South Aceh Polytechnic as the owner of Inotera has a responsibility to communicate and build partnerships with other institutions to develop journals, but they have no power in publication decisions. All such publication decisions are under the responsibility of the Editorial Board in a fair and confidential manner.

The validation of the work in question and its importance for the researcher and the reader should always encourage such a decision. Editors can be guided by the editorial board of the journal policy and are limited by legal requirements as in the future due to defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism. Editors can talk with editors and other reviewers to make this decision.

Principle of Justice
An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content irrespective of race, sex, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship or political philosophy of authors.

Confidentiality
The editor and any editorial staff shall not disclose any information about manuscripts sent to anyone other than potential authors, reviewers, reviewers, editorial advisors, and other publishers. Any manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document. They should not be indicated or discussed with anyone other than those authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity
Unpublished material disclosed in the submitted manuscript shall not be used in the research editors themselves without the written consent of the author.

Special information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. The reviewer should not regard manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest due to a relationship, relationship, or competitive, collaborative, or other relationship with any newspaper-related writer, company or institution.

Source Recognition
The reviewer should identify relevant works of publications that have not been quoted by the author. Any statement that observations, derivations, or arguments have been previously reported should be accompanied by relevant citations. A reviewer should also call the editor's attention to substantial or overlapping equality between the manuscript under consideration and other publication papers with personal knowledge.

Standard reporting
The author of the original research report must present an accurate report of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its importance. The underlying data should be accurately represented in the article. The article should contain enough detail and referrals to allow others to replicate the work. False or intentionally inaccurate statements are unethical and unacceptable behavior.

Data Access and Retention
Authors are required to provide raw data in connection with papers for editorial reviews, and must be prepared to grant public access to the data (in accordance with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Database), if applicable, and should be in any case Prepare to keep the data for which is reasonable after publication.